Posted on 12/29/2001 5:05:05 PM PST by cantfindagoodscreenname
The series of hominid skulls presented to us posed a serious problem for me due to my very conservative protestant upbringing, and until Kurt's talk I was unable to resolve my dilemma. Kurt's message was very simple: He believed utterly in Creationism but couldn't prove it. I respected that, but it did nothing to relieve my anxiety. About halfway through his talk he mentioned one thing in passing that has literally changed my life...Salvation does not depend on a belief in Creationism.
As a scientist, I believe that Natural Selection is the best theory we have to date. As a Christian, I know that God created everything, but how He accomplished this is irrelevant to my faith and Salvation.
Kurt, if you are reading this, I will always be grateful to you for helping a very unsettled undergrad reconcile her science and her faith. Your message made it possible for me to continue with my studies. Thank you!
Hardly fair. Scientists change their interpretation of the natural world when new evidence comes to light. The theory of evolution itself has undergone quite an evolution. Are you trying to "interpret it away" when scientists alter their theories based on new evidence? Are they bound to their initial interpetation?
The thing is, once somebody reaches this level of intelligence, there is no longer any dogmatic constraint on their understanding of biology. They can easily believe that evolution answers "how" and religion answers "who" made life, and there is no necessary contradiction between them: no internal hypocrisy required. I think this is the current official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
I and most of the creationists on this board have reached that level, we accept an old Earth. Still, the evidence does not support macroevolution unless one dogmatically rules out in advance the possiblity that even the most dramatic changes we see in the fossil record came about by divine intervention.
Creationism is therefore properly understood as a problem of those who cannot abstract ("brutes abstract not" -Locke) and are trapped in a literal (mis-?) understanding of the Bible. The rest of us can look past the scientific errors in the Bible (after all these particular donkey jokeys never were the most technologically advanced tribe) and can attempt to find Truth and Beauty in the myths and poems.
But I and others on this board CAN abstract, yet we are creationists. Better re-examine the conclusions in the first sentence of the above paragraph! It is too easy to write us all off as nit-wits, as you do in the first sentence. Or, as you do at the last sentence, to dismiss the Word that has had far more influence on Human History than any other book, as the product of camel jockeys rather than Divine inspiration.
Agreed. This article has the stench of one who knows more than everyone else...
It leads me to believe that the polar opposite of a man with faith is one who absolutely must be right at all costs.
Same old talk.origins BS.
Actually:
genetic drift - any change in gene frequency due to a change in population.
Thus, if all redheaded woodpeckers are eaten by a redheaded woodpecker predator, only the non-redheaded woodpeckers will survive. Redheaded woodpeckers will cease to exist as long as the predator survives to eat them. This is NOT a mutation of genes.
Mathematics was still considered a "science", last I heard. Ever take a math course? The dialectic here is between evolution and mathematics; they're basically incompatible.
Not entirely true. While there are "agendas" out there in science-publication-land, authors generally must follow a little something called "The Scientific Method" in their research. Peer review investigates just this. While some authors are favored over others, in general the scientific community as a whole is subjected to these rigors from the initial proposal for research and funding through final publication.
I apologize for inserting my personal experience into your thread. And yes, I've taken 1 or 2 math courses. I don't believe I could have gotten a degree without them.
I'm amazed at how creatively the creationists ignore and misread what Dawkins is saying here.
Copycat, it's incredible that you would agree with this statement by thucydides which does not jive at all with the content of the article. Dawkins admits that Wise's scientific training qualifies him for a position far above that which Wise actually holds, teaching science at a small and obscure religious school.
Dawkins spends basically spends the entire article dissecting the implications of Wise's blandly confessed avowal that faith trumps all the evidence in the universe. Ahban, he only anecdotally and indirectly attacks Young Earth Creationism by mentioning Wise's own refutation of a supposed Carboniferous human bone, yet you earlier managed to say that the article's logic was strawman because Dawkins attacks only YEC-ism.
Various other posters have contented themselves with citing Dawkins's as arrogant, as if somehow that refuted his point, as if that were all that one could get. Does Dawkins write so poorly that one can't read the article and tell what he's talking about? I didn't think so, but went back for a second read just to be sure.
Paragraph one indeed brings up the subject of creationist credentials. Paragraph two makes it clear that Wise far outshines his C-side colleagues in genuine academic achievement.
In paragraph three, Dawkins tells us where he's going: Wise, despite his familiarity with the evidence, chooses "Virtuoso Believing" over all. Here Dawkins establishes his theme, which the rest of the essay will enlarge.
Paragraph four expands on Wise's knowledge of science and his honest recognition that evidence exists against his chosen position. "Unusually among the motley denizens of the 'big tent' of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness."
Paragraph six begins the almost spooky analysis of how even education and integrity are subsumed by irrational belief. It is here that Dawkins shreds Wise, for Wise in his honesty has admitted what no scientist can admit and still call himself a scientist, that the evidence means nothing against his preconceptions.
Admittedly, Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, et. al would not have Wise's embarrassment here, for they are brazen. So are most of the Cs on this forum. It doesn't matter that anyone can see what's going on.
GIGO. The assumptions upon which the mathematics are based are questionable. All the math in the world, no matter how well done, doesn't amount to much if what it's based on is false.
BWAHAHAHA! (Not count good.)
All papers deserve publication.
This is not exactly a novel, free speech idea. (Nor is it an obscure view in the research community.) Remember that anonymous peer review is a recent innovation and, as a rather non-specific filter, generates a tremendous amount of waste, both in research time and review time, in the science community. Public peer review has a place in assigning limited funding. But, in this day of electronic media, there is ample opportunity for all papers to be published while editorial discretion can determine where they are published.
Question 2) Why had no one propounded the idea of evolution until Darwin?
Question 3) Can anyone name a missing link between species whether living, dead, or fossil?
Question 4) What evidence is there that the earth is over ten thousand years old, millions or billions of years old?
Question 5) Since there is no evidentiary proof of evolution, how can people call themselves scientists who believe it and propagate it without factual evidence?
Question 6) Doesn't the theory of evolution raise more questions than it tries to answer?
Question 7) Why do people continue to beat their heads upon rocks in order to try to deny Genesis 1:1: In The Beginning, God Created the Heaven and the Earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.